- 5 -
February order), that supersedes the May order and establishes
petitioner’s support obligation at “$593.38 bi-weekly for one
child”. Mortgage payments are not referenced in the February
order. The biweekly payments totaling $15,4801 were withheld
from petitioner’s wages during the year in issue.
Although the terms of the May order differ from the terms of
the February order, simple mathematics establishes that
petitioner’s support obligation as stated in terms of dollars and
cents did not change from one order to the next. The manner in
which petitioner treated support payments (including mortgage
payments made directly to the mortgagee or indirectly to his
former spouse) on his Federal income tax returns for years after
he separated from his former spouse, but prior to the year in
issue, has not been made part of the record.
As relevant here, on his timely filed 2002 Federal income
tax return petitioner claimed a $7,800 alimony deduction. In the
notice of deficiency, respondent disallowed that deduction
because petitioner had “not provided verification * * * [he was]
entitled to the credit”.2 Respondent further determined that the
underpayment of tax required to be shown on petitioner’s 2002
return is due to negligence or intentional disregard of rules or
1 This amount is rounded, as $595.38 multiplied by 26 equals
$15,479.88.
2 Following the parties’ lead, we ignore respondent’s misuse
of the term “credit”.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011